No one else has asked, so I will: your status reports says 125 bugs left till solitaire play is ready. So the basic game is complete when that reaches 0? Or, put another way, the substantive coding for the game is done?

I'm not asking for a release date, but it looks like you're on the downhill run.

Cheers, Ben

Yes.

I have the following categories, but they change over time:

Active (basic sequence of play with about 60% of the optional rules), Not reproducible (I have bug reports from the beta testers but I can't make the failure reoccur), Rule changes (recent rule clarifications which mean the code should be modified), Future versions (e.g., uncoded optional rules, NetPlay, PBEM, AIO), Post release (optional rules not scheduled for the first release), and Suggested improvements (the beta testers often have suggestions for things that they would like the program to do that are outside the scope of my contract).

This categorization lets me maintain my focus on getting the sequence of play fully debugged without being sidetracked by other tasks. It's difficult to not spend a few minutes solving new bug reports that are in the other categories, but I try to adhere to just working on the first group.

So, With all of this new update information, is there a release date set?

I am new to the forum but have enjoyed many hours of WiF and would love to play on my PC. I see that this project has been going on for YEARS now with no release date, I was just wondering if this project has an end date?

I would also like to know if I can get the beta version to see for myself how far along this project is and see if it is worth waiting for.

Thanks, ken Fields

I have sworn off estimating release dates. --- The beta test versions are only available to the beta testers. I will probably recruit a few more in early March (not certain, but likely). The way I do that is to post a request for people who have an interest to respond to the request. I leave that open for 7-9 days and then decide whom to accept. If you are interested, check in once a week to this forum and see if I have posted a request for new beta testers.

I'm registered from 2007 and I didn't write messages only read the work in progress reports... I'm waiting for years for this PC version so of course I'm disponible to be a Beta tester!!!

So, With all of this new update information, is there a release date set?

I am new to the forum but have enjoyed many hours of WiF and would love to play on my PC. I see that this project has been going on for YEARS now with no release date, I was just wondering if this project has an end date?

I would also like to know if I can get the beta version to see for myself how far along this project is and see if it is worth waiting for.

Thanks, ken Fields

I have sworn off estimating release dates. --- The beta test versions are only available to the beta testers. I will probably recruit a few more in early March (not certain, but likely). The way I do that is to post a request for people who have an interest to respond to the request. I leave that open for 7-9 days and then decide whom to accept. If you are interested, check in once a week to this forum and see if I have posted a request for new beta testers.

I'm registered from 2007 and I didn't write messages only read the work in progress reports... I'm waiting for years for this PC version so of course I'm disponible to be a Beta tester!!!

I expect to post a request for new beta testers later this month. Check in once a week and you won't miss my post requesting people to apply.

Project Management I monitored all the threads in the MWIF World in Flames forum daily.

There are 94 bugs remaining for basic solitaire play. Roughly 1/3 have to do with naval movement/combat and another 1/3 have to do with routing resources overseas. I had the count down to a low of 83 at one point this month.

Rolf was able to get a clean compile and link of MWIF, but only after much effort. It seems every time MWIF is installed from scratch on a computer system, whether by me or anyone else, there are unexpected problems. Well, I was guilty of leaving out one file when I provided the source code to Mitchell, and then managed to leave out 2 other files when I created a fresh set of source code for Rolf. But nonetheless, there were other difficulties that arose which didn’t make a lot of sense (to me). I guess setting up Delphi, the JEDI libraries, Theme Engine, MadExcept library, and the WIF Custom library involves a lot of steps which have to be performed nigh-on perfectly or else things careen off into a ditch.

I lost a few days this past month (a short month anyway) updating the chorus’ mailing list for the spring show mailing (500 new names and 800 revisions). Then there was the 30 hour span where I made 3 trips to dentists (zero amusement there). In effect, I had 24 working days for MWIF in February.

Hardware and Software Mitchell spent most of the month delving into Theme Engine (TE) source code and running timing trials to determine why it took so long to change the theme from one major power to another. He finally fault isolated it to refreshing the scroll bars for the detailed map. I am not sure exactly why that requires 3 seconds to accomplish, but after I removed the detailed map’s scroll bars from the list of TE components, changing the deciding major power took 2 seconds instead of 5. We might be able to tweak that a little lower, but for now that’s an acceptable delay. If time permits, we might go back and see if we can get the detailed map scroll maps to work under TE without the 3 second delay for introspection.

Mitchell also tested using the new version of TE (9.20) and found it more efficient when changing the theme (although the detailed map scroll bar problem was unaffected). So we replaced TE version 9.10 with 9.20.

Beta Testing I released versions 7.04.00 (17 fixes), 7.04.01 (16 fixes), 7.04.02 ( 28 fixes), 7.04.03 (1 fix), 7.04.04 (28 fixes), 7.04.05 ( 16 fixes), and 8.00.00 (12 fixes) to the beta testers last month. This totals 7 new versions and 118 fixes, which is my normal average for a month. Obviously version 7.04.03 fixed a major problem that I had created with version 7.04.02 - hence the immediate release of the patch with 1 fix the next day. I changed the numbering to 8.00.00 because we installed the new version of Theme Engine (9.20) and otherwise have solved most of the problems with TE. This also is a significant milestone since I am bringing both Mitchell and Rolf up-to-date with a complete new source code upload that corresponds to version 8.00.00.

Fatal errors still occur but they are fewer in frequency. About 2/3rds of the new bugs relate to recent changes I made to the code. Those are easy to fix. And the rest of the bugs are either duplicates of bugs previously reported or obscure items. For example, when an empty hex is both invaded and attacked from an adjacent hex, the odds displayed during the Land Combat Declaration phase do not include the notional unit. Change any of those conditions and the odds are shown correctly. As I said, obscure.

Here is the modification that caused me to skip version 7.03.00: I modified the code to conform with changes from Harry Rowland (ADG) as to where naval units can set up at sea. Previously CWIF tracked each unit that was set up at sea back to either a major or minor port and counted how many were using each minor port for a hypothetical "return to base". Harry's modified rule is that there only needs to be one opening available for all units at sea. So, dozens of naval units could be ‘using' the same minor port. The code now has no minor port limitations imposed when units are set up at sea. However, at the end of setup for each major power, a check is run to make sure at least one slot is available for each naval unit set up at sea. The same slot can be used by innumerable ships. If there isn't an available slot, then the program requires the payer to correct the setup before the setup phase for that major power can be terminated. Because this change affected the format of saved games, I skipped version 7.03.00 and went directly to 7.04.00.

Most of the bugs I fixed during February involved naval movement and naval air combat. By contrast, surface and submarine combat seem stable. I currently have 9 naval movement and 16 naval combat bugs to figure out and fix. Virtually all the naval movement problems relate to interceptions and the naval combat to naval air combat. So, after fixing a bunch of stuff, I’m back to about the same count I had last month for those two phases (sigh).

Saved Games Saving and restoring games is stable. I added the name of the current major power to the label for automatically saved games during 10 additional phases. This makes it possible to restore a game to a more precise point in the sequence of play. For example, you can restore a game partway through choosing actions for major powers rather than only at the beginning of the phase.

Map and Units Rob continues to send me new and/or updated naval unit writeups. Happily, Adam has returned to doing new writeups for the land units. The count for missing land unit writeups is now below 90. I updated the master file of land unit writeups with both Adam’s additions and another couple of dozen that I had received over the past year. The master file is now current with all land unit writeups I have received.

Scenarios and Optional Rules Nothing really new here. I fixed a couple of minor bugs that were scenario specific.

MWIF Game Engine and CWIF Conversion I got the Naval Abort Queue to function correctly. There are a still a couple of small bugs remaining, but the primary functionality of choosing which units to abort as a group and returning them to base now works. Hark, the last of the 7 digression ‘phases’ (Naval Combat Abort ) has been completed!

I also fixed a bug in nested digressions so they operate as intended. For instance, when an overrun naval unit is forced to rebase through an enemy controlled sea area, a naval interception digressions occurs. After the interception is resolved, the sequence of play returns to the forced naval rebase digression in progress. The forced naval rebase digression could occur during land movement, advance after combat, invasions, conquest, or other places in the sequence of play.

Player Interface I added a small new form that reports which scenario is being played, mode of play, and which players are playing. It is of minor importance for game play but is helpful for debugging purposes.

I modified the Choose Naval Combat form so it gives more emphasis to the list of sea areas. This was part of a general revision to the form to fix some bugs.

Internet - NetPlay For now, NetPlay is in Mitchell’s hands. He was distracted by working on Theme Engine but should get back to the stand alone test program for NetPlay soon.

PBEM Once Mitchell gets the NetPlay communications working, he’ll do the same for the PBEM communications.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Peter made excellent progress on the geographic breakdown for the AI Opponent. I revised the documentation on the command structure for the AIO so each element of the geography has a corresponding decision maker. There are 16 Theaters of Operation (TOs) that span the global map. Within each TO there is a breakdown for naval units into Sea Area Groups (which contain individual Sea Areas) and for land units into Areas of Operations (which contain Land Regions). The goal here is to provide a hierarchy of decision makers for strategic and operational decisions and a different decision maker for tactical decisions.

For instance, decisions about convoy routes span multiple sea areas and are made higher up in the chain of command, while decisions concerning a specific naval combat are made by the Fleet Admiral responsible for the sea area in which the combat is taking place. Likewise army reinforcements are shipped off to various TOs, whose commander designates which AO gets them; the AO commander designates a Land Region, whose Commanding General then decides in which hex to place the new unit.

What Peter has achieved is a finished geographic breakdown for Western Europe and the Med. He has almost completed the same for Eastern Europe. Those 3 geographic regions encompass the WIF FE European map.

Rolf and Mitchell plan to work together on completing the parser for LAIO (Language for an Artificial Intelligence Opponent) scripts. Peter has been working diligently on LAIO scripts and deserves seeing them in action, making decisions, ASAP.

Player’s Manual I updated Rules as Coded (RAC) with a description of the Naval Abort Queue, which is a deviation from Rules as Written (RAW). I also reviewed and updated section 10 of the Players Manual so it accurately lists all the RAC deviations from RAW.

Tutorials, Training Videos, and Context Sensitive Help I continue to make small changes to the context sensitive help messages based on feedback from the beta testers.

The game has come a long way. I look at the forums about once a month, and how far the game has come along is a amazing. I am a software development manager, and I thoroughly appreciate the monumental task that was undertaken years ago. I patiently look forward to the day that I can play the game on the computer. The original game was awesome enough, but being able to play it on the computer will be so awesome. If there is anything that I can do, other than offer words of encouragement, please let me know. Thank you for your efforts.

The game has come a long way. I look at the forums about once a month, and how far the game has come along is a amazing. I am a software development manager, and I thoroughly appreciate the monumental task that was undertaken years ago. I patiently look forward to the day that I can play the game on the computer. The original game was awesome enough, but being able to play it on the computer will be so awesome. If there is anything that I can do, other than offer words of encouragement, please let me know. Thank you for your efforts.

Thank you for your words of encouragement.

It took me a while but I think I have something you might be able/want to do to help. Please send me an email (SHokanson@HawaiianTel.net) with a couple of sentences about your experience, a couple more about what you would be interested in doing to help, and how many hours a week you would have available for MWIF.

As always thanks for your dedication to this great game. I must say that it's starting to look good now with all the extra help you've been given recently. I always felt bad about you having to toil away year after year all alone on this. I realize that the beta-testers and others have done and are doing a great job too, but being the lone coder must be very hard in the long run without having any others to spar with or indeed to help lift the heavy workload. So to me it's great news that you've finally got some help.

Hey Steve. I think it's fair to say that when this game is completed, you will have made wargaming history, software development history and even a little piece of internet community history, all rolled into the same package. Can't help but admire your resolve and sheer, dogged determination. Cheers.

_____________________________

"Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier." (Samuel Johnson, letter to James Boswell, 1778)

April 1, 2011 Status Report for Matrix Games’ MWIF ForumAccomplishments of March 2011

Project Management I monitored all the threads in the MWIF World in Flames forum daily.

There are 83 bugs remaining in the sequence of play. I had the count down to a low of 81 a couple of times this past month but I haven’t been able to crack 80 yet.

Rolf did some work on the LAIO parser (see the section on AI below). Mitchell has had some pressing matters in his home life and was unable to spend time on MWIF in March.

Hardware and Software I purchased an upgrade to CorelDraw so I can run it under Win 7. I don’t use this graphics package as much as I use to, but it still is my primary tool for creating and maintaining graphics for help files (e.g., unit status indicators).

The only open item with Theme Engine concerns the scroll bars for the detailed map. At some point I want to fix that so all the scroll bars in the game are identical, but that’s no big deal.

Beta Testing I released versions 8.00.02 (20 fixes), 8.00.03 (17 fixes), 8.00.04 (11 fixes), 8.00.05 (2 fixes), 8.00.06 (14 fixes), 8.00.07 (14 fixes), 8.00.08 (5 fixes), and 8.01.00 (20 fixes) to the beta testers last month. This totals 8 new versions and 103 fixes, which is slightly below my average number of fixes for a month. There was no version 8.00.01. Every so often I modify the format for saved games and have to skip a version number as far as the beta testers are concerned.

Obviously versions 8.00.05 and 8.00.08 fixed major problems that I had created in the previous version - hence the immediate release of a new patch the next day. I changed the numbering to 8.01.00 because the number of patches was growing too large.

A quick summary would be: 1/4 from prior to 1020, 1/4 from 2010, and ˝ from the first 3 months of this year. What I take from the above statistics is that I’ve cleaned up thousands of old bugs but new ones keep appearing. This reflects the ability of the beta testers to go through the sequence of play more often/faster (because there are fewer problems), which enables them to encounter situations they hadn’t seen previously.

I focused on the naval movement bugs this past month and reduced them to zero - several times (the beta testers keep me honest). So, I believe that all the code related to moving naval units is now bug-free (I’m always the optimistic programmer). There are 13 naval combat bugs and 28 having to do with routing resources overseas. The other half are scattered about in different places in the sequence of play.

In reviewing the 103 fixes for the past month about 2/3rds related to either naval movement or naval combat. Naval air combat is very complex and a bear to debug because of all the possibilities. Especially troublesome has been aborting air and naval units from the different places in the combat where that can occur (see the Players Manual section 8.4.5.4 Air Movement which is appended to the end of this report). These days my main difficulty with the other bugs scattered throughout the sequence of play is recreating them so I can figure out what is going wrong. I have 300+ saved games that let me test individual phases and subphases in the sequence of play, but things that happen rarely (e.g., Turkish units moving into Greece, conquest, surrender, and liberation of major powers) are not in my quiver of saved games.

Fatal crashes are rare, perhaps a half dozen in the past month, and I was able to fix almost all of those immediately.

Saved Games Saving and restoring games is stable. I continue to make small changes to the saved game format as I find a need for additional variables to keep track of the game state.

Map and Units Rob and Adam continue to send me new and/or updated naval and land unit writeups, respectively.

Scenarios and Optional Rules I made half the sea areas illegal to enter for the half-map scenarios. For instance, when playing Fascist Tide (the war in Europe) entering the Indian and Pacific Oceans is not permitted. Orm has been testing Fascist Tide and there have been several things I needed to fix related to the special rules for half map scenarios. Orm is also testing head-to-head/hotseat play. There isn’t a lot to that from a programming point of view. Mostly, the program needs to display a form/message that says to switch to the other player/side.

MWIF Game Engine and CWIF Conversion I added more information to the Main form's prompt message when it is possible to move naval units (cost in movement points and range for using safest route). More importantly, I revised the code for the internal record formats on which sea areas/ports the units-in-hand can move into. CWIF used the same record layouts for air rebases, all land unit moves, and all naval moves. I split those into 3 different record types (air, land, naval) since different information was needed for each record type. That let me clarify the names of the fields in each record so they explain the data better. The changes for the air and land moves had zero effect - since they effectively were just cosmetic.

My main motivation was to make it easier to debug the naval movement code. The summary of naval movement that is appended to the end of this report (taken from the Players Manual 8.4.5.3 Naval Movement) should explain why I felt a strong need to make the code as easy to understand as possible.

The main effect on game play of the naval changes is that the program now assumes the player wants to avoid sea areas where the enemy can attempt to intercept the moving units, even if it takes more movement points. The player can always move directly to sea areas where the enemy can intercept and ‘dare' him to do so. If the enemy declines (or fails), the player can continue moving and perhaps reach his destination using fewer movement points and range.

I created a new ‘pool’: the Destroyed Units Pool. This is another off-map ‘location’ for units. It replaces the Destroyed Stack variable that I had been using. Besides maintaining standardization with all the other off-map pools, this addition makes it clear ‘where’ the unit currently resides. When players access the Pools form to review the units in the off-map pools, the Destroyed Pool is like all the others (e.g., Force Pool, Production Pools).

Player Interface I enhanced the Drop Off Units forms to clarify what happens when a group of naval units enters a port. It was easy to get confused when some of the naval units stopped in the port, while others in the moving group picked up cargo and continued moving.

I modified the Select Units form so it includes filters for movement points and range. For example, this lets you examine a large stack of naval units and quickly select just those with 6 movement points. I also increased the size of the form so more units are visible.

I updated and improved the unit status indicators. The main change was to clarify when a unit was receiving HQ support and/or engineer support. I also updated the help page for status indicators, including the graphics which were about a year out-of-date.

Internet - NetPlay NetPlay is still in Mitchell’s hands.

PBEM Nothing new.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) I changed the fundamental data structure for the map so it can hold additional information on the geographical breakdown for the AIO. This should have zero effect on game play as far as human players are concerned. The change to the Terrain data adds a new field to each land hex to store the Land Region ID #. Along with this I added a new field to the Sea Area data to store the Sea Area Group ID #. And as the final pieces, I created simple Theater of Operation, Area of Operation, Land Region, and Sea Area Group files which hold the details on each of those elements, including cross references. In practice, this means that the AI Opponent code can trace any land hex back to its LR, AO, and TO, and can trace an all-sea hex back to its sea area, SAG, and TO. The AIO uses this data to ‘understand’ the map.

The greatest advantage that a human player has over the AIO is the ability to literally ‘see’ the map. For the AIO it is just a bunch of incohesive data. Using the newly added geographical data, the AIO can assess the strength of the forces on both sides in a land region and decide whether to attack, maneuver, defend, or retreat. The same applies to AOs, SAGs, and TOs. This is my best attempt to mimic a human player simply looking at the map and making a quick assessment of the relative strengths of the two sides.

In order to validate the new data I added a (debug) line under the Main form that shows and updates the TO, AO, LR, and SAG values as the cursor is scrolled across each hex. Peter is maintaining the data for those files, but Patrice has volunteered to do the hard task: entering a LR ID # for each land hex on the map (~20,000). I got this started by entering the data for Iceland (whoop-de-do!). I did that so I could test that the software found the correct LR name for each hex.

Peter continues to made excellent progress on the geographic breakdown for the AI Opponent with advice from Patrice and myself. To date, he has finished 8 of the 16 TOs: Western Europe, Eastern Europe (up to Siberia), Mediterranean, East Africa, West Africa, Middle East, South Asia (i.e., India), East Asia (i.e. China & Japan), and is working on Southeast Asia. The last includes the South China Sea, the Bismarck Sea, the Solomons, and the Marianas.

Rolf has made some progress on completing the parser for LAIO (Language for an Artificial Intelligence Opponent) scripts. That is slow going, which is understandable. There was a good reason why I stopped working on the parser where I did: the next step was really difficult.

Player’s Manual I added a subsection on Dropping Off Units to the Players Manual. That form is used for both dropping off units and, when in port, picking up cargo while passing through. There were also a couple of changes to bring RAC up-to-date with MWIF deviations/interpretations from/of Rules as Written (RAW).

Tutorials, Training Videos, and Context Sensitive Help Nothing new.

Historical Video, Music, and Sound Effects Nothing new.

Marketing Nothing new.

Communications Nothing new.

8.4.5.3 Naval Movement Group Movement If you want to move several units as a group, you can either select them using the Flyouts form (see section 8.4.6), the Naval Review Details form (see section 8.7.1.10), the Units in Hex form (see section 8.7.1.24), or using Ctrl-Left-Click in the unit’s start hex (see section 11.8). All the units you select have to have started the impulse in the same: (1) hex or (2) sea area and section box. Once you have selected a group of units, you move them the same way you move a single unit.

Default Path The easiest way to move a unit is to “pick one up” and left click on a destination hex or sea area. The program finds the fastest path that avoids interception by enemy units to the destination. Here fastest means the path that requires the fewest movement points. Visually the unit appears to ‘jump’ from its original hex or sea area to the destination hex or sea area.

Precise Path If you do not want to use the program’s chosen path, you can control which ports or sea areas units enter by holding down the Ctrl key and left clicking on each port or sea area in the path you want the units to traverse. In fact, you can combine these two methods. For instance you could use the Ctrl key and click on the first hex in the path and then release the Ctrl key and click on a final destination hex or sea area several hexes away.

Entering a precise path for naval movement should only be used if: (1) you are moving a group of naval units and want to drop some of them off in a sea area or port, or (2) you are moving into a port to pick up cargo. The disadvantage of using the Ctrl key for naval movement is that those moves cannot be undone.

Units are typically loaded in port during the naval movement phase immediately before moving the naval units transporting them. However, it is possible to load cargo onto naval units by “passing through” a port. A third way to pick up cargo as part of the naval unit’s move is to: move a naval unit from a port into a sea area, have the naval unit end its movement in the sea area, and then pick up cargo from a coastal hex. Finally, carrier air units can be loaded onto carriers during the Setup, Reinforcements, and Air Rebase phases. Carrier air units can also change which carrier is transporting them when the carrier air unit returns from an air mission or naval air combat.

All cargo is unloaded when a naval unit ends its move in a port. The sole exception is for carrier air units aboard carriers, which are only unloaded during: (1) the Remove Air subphase of the Reinforcement phase, (2) the Air Rebase phase, and (3) when flying an air mission or in a naval air combat. To be clear about this: carriers are the only naval units that may carry cargo (i.e., carrier air units) while in port.

Enemy Interception of Naval Moves If you enter a sea area where enemy units can intercept your moving units, enemy players with units capable of intercepting are immediately asked whether they want to intercept. Regardless of their answer, at that point no previously made naval moves can be undone. This follows the general rule that once an opponent has to make a decision, no moves made previously can be undone.

If the naval interception is not attempted or fails, you have the opportunity to decide whether to have all your units stop in the sea area, continue moving all your units, or have some of them stop and have others continue moving. If the interception succeeds, you decide whether to have all your units stop in the sea area or to fight through. If you decide to fight through and survive the combat, you have the opportunity to decide whether to have all your units stop in the sea area, continue moving all your units, or have some of them stop and have others continue moving.

Sometimes you enter an enemy sea area even though you could go around it, because you want to take the most direct route to your destination. Remember, the default route avoids sea areas where enemy units are capable of intercepting the moving units, so it is quite possible that the default route uses more range and movement points.

Undoing Moves As long as you do not use the Ctrl key for moving units and do not enter sea areas where enemy units are capable of intercepting your moving units, you can undo naval moves freely. This includes undoing moves where units were loaded from a coastal hex. If you use the Ctrl key to move surface naval units (i.e., not submarines), then that move cannot be undone. However, other naval moves made before and after using the Ctrl key can be undone freely.

The important point is that once a naval interception is possible, no naval moves made previously can be undone.

Overstacking MWIF usually permits overstacking in ports during the naval movement and return to base phases. However, during the return to base phases, overstacking naval units in minor ports is not permitted. If you attempt to move units into ports where overstacking, a warning message that the hex will be overstacked is displayed. At the end of these phases, all stacking limits are enforced by the program and units in excess of the stacking limits have to be destroyed by their owners.

Naval Movement - in detail The rules for naval movement are quite complex, primarily because of the possibilities of loading cargo, dropping off units, and being intercepted by enemy forces. On top of that there may be limits imposed on the number of naval moves permitted during the naval movement phase. The following enumerates all these possibilities.

There are 5 places in the sequence of play where naval units can move: A. Naval movement phase. A.1 From a port to a sea area. A.2 From a sea area to a port. A.3 Within a sea area, to a lower section box. B. Return to base phases, from a sea area to a port. C. Forced rebase due to the control of a port changing sides (e.g., overrun , conquest), from a port to a port. D. Forced or voluntary return to base from a naval combat, from a sea area to a port. E. Return to base by French naval units at sea during the formation of Vichy France, from a sea area to a port.

• Only A uses naval activities, and even then only when the major power owning the naval units took a Combined action. • Only A.1 and A.3 permit a naval unit to end its move in a sea area. All the others must end in a port. • Only A.1 permits loading a unit in port at the start of a naval move. Cargo must start the impulse in the port. • Only A.1, A.2, and B permit loading a unit in a port while “passing through”. • Only A.1 and A.3 permit loading a unit at sea at the end of a naval move. • Only A.1 permits dropping off naval units in a sea area (using Ctrl-Left-Click). However, this can only be done if there are sufficient naval activities available. • A.1, A.2, B, C, and D all permit dropping off naval units in a port (using Ctrl-Left-Click). However, during A.1 and A.2 this can only be done if there are sufficient naval activities available. • For all moves except A.3 and E the player can specify which sea areas and ports the units traverse (using Ctrl-Left-Click). • All except A.3 and E can be intercepted by enemy units. • All naval moves in progress can be cancelled, unless units in the moving stack were previously dropped off, or the moving stack entered a sea area where it could be intercepted (regardless of whether it was or not). • All completed naval moves can be undone, unless units in the moving stack were previously dropped off, or since the move was completed, any moving stack entered a sea area where it could be intercepted (regardless of whether it was or not).

Resolving interceptions of naval movement has the following logic branches: 1. Interception not attempted 1.1 All units continue moving (future movement by the units cannot be cancelled). 1.2 All units stop in the sea area. Only possible during A.1, loading units from coastal hexes permitted. 1.3. Some units stop and others continue moving. During A.1 this is only possible if sufficient naval activities are available. 2. Interception attempted 2.1 Interception failed 2.1.1 All units continue moving (future movement by the units cannot be cancelled). 2.1.2 All units stop in the sea area. Only possible during A.1, loading units from coastal hexes permitted. 2.1.3. Some units stop and others continue moving. During A.1 this is only possible if sufficient naval activities are available. 2.2 Interception succeeded 2.2.1 All units stop in the sea area. 2.2.2 All units “fight through”. 2.2.2.1 All units destroyed in naval combat 2.2.2.2 Combat resolved to quiescence and some moving naval units survive. 2.2.2.2.1 All surviving units continue moving (future movement by the units cannot be cancelled). 2.2.2.1.2 All surviving units stop in the sea area. Only possible during A.1, loading units from coastal hexes permitted. 2.2.2.1.3. Some units stop and others continue moving. During A.1 this is only possible if sufficient naval activities are available.

8.4.5.4 Air Movement Default and Precise Paths The path that an air unit takes is immaterial, unless you are playing with the optional rule En-route Aircraft Interception.

Group Movement Air units are always moved one unit at a time, although they may be carrying cargo.

Undoing Moves Air unit moves can always be undone during the subphase in which they are moved, unless you are playing with the optional rule En-route Aircraft Interception.

Return to Base Moves One convenience for returning air units to base is available on the popup unit menu. If you Right-Click on an air unit that needs to return to base, one of the popup menu items is “Return from Whence”. Clicking on that returns the air unit to the location from which it began the air mission. Exactly where in the sequence of play air units return to base is varied, as explained below.

Returning a land based air unit from an air mission to a land hex is simple. You select the unit and drop it on the hex where you want it to land. For carrier air units, a form is displayed that lets you select on which carrier you want to land the unit. If only one carrier is available, then the program lands the carrier air unit for you automatically. In situations where you have multiple carrier air units to land or if there are multiple carriers on which to land, then the displayed form lets you choose which carrier air unit lands on which carrier.

Returning from a naval air combat is similar but more complex. There are 5 points where an air unit might return to base from a naval air combat: a aborted due to an air-to-air combat abort result, b aborted due to its side aborting from the air-to-air combat, c bomber aborted due to an AA fire abort result, d "returns to base" after a naval (air) combat round, and e entire side voluntarily aborts from a naval combat.

For the purpose of this discussion, there are 3 'kinds' of air units. What happens to each of them when they return to base differs depending on circumstances. A Land based air units present in a sea area section box that was included in the combat. a, c, e returns to base in a land hex and become disorganized. b, d 'return' to the sea area section box they w in when the naval air combat began (organized status unaffected). B Carrier air units (when playing with the optional rule Carrier Planes) were aboard a carrier that was included in the combat. a, b, d 'return' to any undamaged carrier on which they can fit (organized status unaffected). c can not occur. e 'return' to any undamaged carrier on which they can fit (organized status unaffected). The carriers then abort. C Temporary carrier air units (when not playing with the optional rule Carrier Planes) were generated automatically by the program for each undamaged carrier that was included in the combat. a, b, d removed from the game; their carriers’ organized status is unaffected. c can not occur. e removed from the game; their carriers’ organized status is unaffected, but the carriers then abort.

I wish I had known you were having issues with the maps and AI. My professional specialty is simulation and modeling of human and other geographic systems and processes and the induction of decision trees based on this... If I wasn't so busy trying to prevent Japan from turning int 1000 Mile island, I'd offer my services.... (You can still make use of me though).

From what I can gather what is going on now is that you guys are perfecting the game more than "making it." This is a good sign. I'm saving my New Taiwanese Dollars for this one.... I can feeel it coming closer (said like the Emperor Palpatine). Goooooood.... (Palpatine).

Scenarios and Optional Rules I made half the sea areas illegal to enter for the half-map scenarios. For instance, when playing Fascist Tide (the war in Europe) entering the Indian and Pacific Oceans is not permitted. Doktor has been testing Fascist Tide and there have been several things I needed to fix related to the special rules for half map scenarios. Orm is also testing head-to-head/hotseat play. There isn’t a lot to that from a programming point of view. Mostly, the program needs to display a form/message that says to switch to the other player/side.

Let's cut the crap. It's time to be done with amateur hour, and with a company that could care less if WiF is ever played on computer. CWiF (let's not prolong the joke that is 'MWiF') is being held hostage by Matrix. Not sure what type of deal ADG got snookered into, but if there is any means of reverting the computer rights, they need to be turned around and shopped to companies actually interested in completing and releasing the game.

Seven years, folks. Shannon you tried, but this task is plainly beyond the abilities of yourself and a cast of volunteers - whether that's due to a lack of support or talent doesn't matter. At least moving on will save you the indignity of cutting-and-pasting more New Year's Resolutions to be broken. Time to set fanboy-ery aside and put away the silly smileys. After seven years, the current product is functionally indistinguishable from the old beta I play every week - limited scenarios and no AI. That's all that really matters. Graphics are sweetened, there're historical descriptions, and some bugs removed? BIG F'IN DEAL.

At some point, results have to trump effort. After seven years with Matrix, CWiF still hasn't reached that point, and so it's time to admit the failure of the current model and look elsewhere. That's not going to happen if every too-little effort is celebrated, every noble failure is backslapped and 'atta-boyed, and every New Year is celebrated with the same tired thank yous and prayers for progress. I've written this post to encourage Matrix and Shannon to step away honorably. I'll email ADG with the same thoughts and an exhortation to find a company worthy of the CWiF brand. Not sure what I else I can do. I hope others will join me in taking off their rose-colored glasses and embarking on a course of action that might result in the CWiF product we deserve.

1/7/2010 clearly you don´t know anything.

i´m one of the testers. and the game is almost finished.

I hate people that take about something they don´t know anything about.

quote:

1/9/2011 I think there are a 90% chance of a 2011 release ..

there are still alot of unanswered questions and thing that can go wrong.

I´m a very active beta tester and have been for 3 years. I´m spending 20-30 hours a week on the game. and I promise you. it is looking really good.

What have we here? A wildly optimistic and completely drawn-from-thin-air release date prediction from michaelbaldur can only mean it's January... Happy New Year!

yes I am optimistic. but that is simply because I have seen the game ...

I think it is time to change my prediction .. it simply harder to make the game bug free.. it is the naval movement/ naval combat code that is slowing us down ...

I'm a long time WiF player, going back to the mid 90's. Eagerly anticipating the release of this. Is there any chance Matrix and/or ADG will also make a printed map available to use with the boardgame? I know I'm not the only one who love to get a printed copy of the world map on Euro scale for table games. Maybe you guys could even release that ahead of time. I know we could always make it up ourselves when we get the computer game but this would solve any copywrite issues, Matrix could make a few extra dollars for all the hardwork that went into the map and happy WiFfers could get to strategise over the new map ahead of game release. Hope you like the idea anyway, I can't wait to play a full world WiF game at Euro scale.

I'm a long time WiF player, going back to the mid 90's. Eagerly anticipating the release of this. Is there any chance Matrix and/or ADG will also make a printed map available to use with the boardgame? I know I'm not the only one who love to get a printed copy of the world map on Euro scale for table games. Maybe you guys could even release that ahead of time. I know we could always make it up ourselves when we get the computer game but this would solve any copywrite issues, Matrix could make a few extra dollars for all the hardwork that went into the map and happy WiFfers could get to strategise over the new map ahead of game release. Hope you like the idea anyway, I can't wait to play a full world WiF game at Euro scale.

I investigated this - slightly. The cost would be very high.

Bear in mind that the full world map, printed to WIF FE scale would be something like 8 feet high by 17 feet wide (if I am remembering the dimensions correctly).

Bear in mind that the full world map, printed to WIF FE scale would be something like 8 feet high by 17 feet wide (if I am remembering the dimensions correctly).

Yes, but how awesome would that be as a magnetised WiF board on my garage wall. Kneel before me peasants, I am the King of the WiF universe.

Did you get an idea of pricings? Many of us dedicated Wiffers already spend up towards the thousand dollar mark to enlarge, print and magnetise the boards. My game group is looking at mounting the AiF maps at the moment. We have Europe, Asia, Africa and Scandinavia but I can tell you if this map were available we would throw out the current ones and get this one mounted.

If Matrix and/or ADG don't want to follow it up can we get copywrite permission to print the map out from the game when we purchase it? That's an awful lot of screenshots to match up though, I'd rather pay for a quality image to print or even purchase the map in printed segments.

Anyway, if it is an option to explore don't let prices slow you down. most of us Wiffers are old farts with the funds to throw at our vices. I'm drooling over those map shots, that Aisa/Pacific map is my dream come true. Awesome job on it.

I love the line in 'Jurassic Park' where Jeff Goldblum essentially makes the point that just because you can do something is not necessarily justification that you should, nor that the herculean effort required was going to be worth it in the end. As long as MWiF remains the only game trying to represent this conflict on a global scale with this level of detail, there's no reason to stop.

Right now, the closest thing would be Battlefront's 'SC-GC'. It lacks the same detail, but is very close, and I believe benefits greatly from a 'start from scratch' philosophy for it's target demographic; the pbem crowd.

My fear is that soon enough, one of these games will be able to offer more detail than MWiF, because it is able to exploit all the advantages the computer can afford -not trying to recreate boardgame, let alone forcing requirements like AI and PBEM that were never part of the original design into it. And if that happens, aside from the dedicated WiF crowd, MWiF may be rendered somewhat obsolete. This is not Steve; the developer's fault. But rather that of the Matrix staff, who will continue to pay the price as interest wains and competition improves.

I love the line in 'Jurassic Park' where Jeff Goldblum essentially makes the point that just because you can do something is not necessarily justification that you should, nor that the herculean effort required was going to be worth it in the end. As long as MWiF remains the only game trying to represent this conflict on a global scale with this level of detail, there's no reason to stop.

Right now, the closest thing would be Battlefront's 'SC-GC'. It lacks the same detail, but is very close, and I believe benefits greatly from a 'start from scratch' philosophy for it's target demographic; the pbem crowd.

My fear is that soon enough, one of these games will be able to offer more detail than MWiF, because it is able to exploit all the advantages the computer can afford -not trying to recreate boardgame, let alone forcing requirements like AI and PBEM that were never part of the original design into it. And if that happens, aside from the dedicated WiF crowd, MWiF may be rendered somewhat obsolete. This is not Steve; the developer's fault. But rather that of the Matrix staff, who will continue to pay the price as interest wains and competition improves.

Lol, is this a joke? Really? You're going to attempt to compare Battlefront's 'SC-GC' to WiF? This WiF? SC-GC started originally as an amateur attempt to fill a void for a simplistic WWII computer strategy game for the European theater. IMO, GC is a more refined global version but still is very basic and lacks greatly in many areas. I was bored with SC-GC after a month or so.

You have no idea the complexity in WiF if you can make such a comment. Comparing SC-GC to WiF is like comparing a bi-plane to a modern day jet fighter.

I still can't believe somebody could even bring up the context of SC-GC. That game is just such a joke when it comes to anything polished and detailed for a WWII grand strategy game. Just look at the graphics in SC, something from 1999. Not trying to completely bash on SC-GC, that game has it's fit for people that want a simple minded game about WWII. It's insulting to try and compare it to WiF. If you like SC-GC so much, I feel that WiF might be a little over your head and the complexity might be too much for some gamers.

For me, I'm very excited and patient about the upcoming release of WiF. Do I see refinements and patches in it's future, you bet. I can say this being in the industry and knowing people that worked on Paradox's nightmare release of Hearts of Iron. A game of this magnitude is destined for patches (but better than HOI). I also see a very dedicated passionate group of people that will make WiF a truly landmark computer strategy game down the road. A similar experience I'm sure to WitE by 2by3 games.

Lol, is this a joke? Really? You're going to attempt to compare Battlefront's 'SC-GC' to WiF? This WiF? SC-GC started originally as an amateur attempt to fill a void for a simplistic WWII computer strategy game for the European theater. IMO, GC is a more refined global version but still is very basic and lacks greatly in many areas. I was bored with SC-GC after a month or so.

You have no idea the complexity in WiF if you can make such a comment. Comparing SC-GC to WiF is like comparing a bi-plane to a modern day jet fighter.

I still can't believe somebody could even bring up the context of SC-GC. That game is just such a joke when it comes to anything polished and detailed for a WWII grand strategy game. Just look at the graphics in SC, something from 1999. Not trying to completely bash on SC-GC, that game has it's fit for people that want a simple minded game about WWII. It's insulting to try and compare it to WiF. If you like SC-GC so much, I feel that WiF might be a little over your head and the complexity might be too much for some gamers.

For me, I'm very excited and patient about the upcoming release of WiF. Do I see refinements and patches in it's future, you bet. I can say this being in the industry and knowing people that worked on Paradox's nightmare release of Hearts of Iron. A game of this magnitude is destined for patches (but better than HOI). I also see a very dedicated passionate group of people that will make WiF a truly landmark computer strategy game down the road. A similar experience I'm sure to WitE by 2by3 games.

I didn't post to argue against WiF, and anything I say to defend SC-GC will do that. I will however stand by my original statement. There's a difference between detail for detail's sake, and realism. I'm speaking purely of the latter. One game has units(hits) that are more minute than the other. One has it's units gain experience. Supply is not binary,but on many levels. One has multiple technology levels which players can invest in as well as a political map that can be invested in as well. And one is vastly easier to play. A clue; it's not WiF. Why you chose to pick this fight, I don't know. But you really don't want to go there.

Wif has a vastly more detailed map and while a lot of it is purely for detail's sake, vastly more detail.

Seems like your moving along Steve if you get done this year [not being negative or smart] you get a bag of Tony Lukes pork sandwiches, and if that does not motivate you than nothing will, keep up the good work and put out this monster program only when its ready.

Just wanted to note that I am one of the minority who is willing to pay now for a buggy game that will be patched extensively in the coming months. That is probably because I never played the original boardgame and so, considering the not-too-much spare time I have,learning the game will take some moths for me.